Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Yes, we all know what Bill Hicks actually said on stage and his great riff on the murder of JFK in Dealey Plaza and his vehement wrath against perception management and we'd like everyone to know about that part of Bill Hicks.
But there are harmful social processes that are exploited by experts when an icon gets the Hollywood treatment which are counter to the icon's values and the way they are socially sustained in the culture at large. This happens despite someone like Russell Crowe's good intentions.
Icons get commodified and diluted and that version gets embedded in more people's minds than the 'best of' mythic view of the icon.
The same Hollywood treatment has been given to other politically dangerous icons-
John Lennon, Che Guevara, Johnny Cash.
The principle exploited is: "Detail is anathema to myth."
The political myth of 'Bill Hicks on JFK' and other of his views which are revered as legendary on the internet will be mnemonically diluted with crap about his personal life and personal foibles etc. even as he becomes more widely known.
There's a cost-benefit dynamic at work that doesn't always work 'for us'' and tends to work 'for them' in ways not realized.
The icon is exploited as a carrier for viral marketing of things that power wants amplified.
The cigarette thing is HUGE politically and this needs to be dialed into the equation.
Just the SIGHT of him with a cigarette like those posted photos will create more smokers and tobacco addiction is an important social control in a number of ways.
Just the psychology of normalizing a toxic lifestyle assists fascist military and corporate agendas in many ways.
Remember Andrew Dice Clay's unnecessary career and Denis Leary ripping off Hicks' material, both while waving their cigarettes around as their 'fuck no-risk pussies' territorial markers?
Tobacco is used as a gateway risk in youth to make military recruiting of them more likely, just as alcohol and petty theft are encouraged, too, for the same reason.
CIA-Hollywood has been subliminally encouraging kids to smoke and drink for this reason, to make them less risk-adverse and vigilant against war and pollution.
I won't go into details but even Elvis movies were used as counterpropaganda for corporate toxic liabilities in the late 1960s because risk-averse psychology is directly related to military recruiting and thus national security. That's the psyops logic, anyway.
This is all complex. But truth-telling icons and politically-aware youth don't come out ahead in a deal with CIA-Hollywood. Just the opposite.
on edit: I just noticed the op article's mention of the Bra Boys film, My Brother's Keeper. I noted in another thread how that ties to General Wesley Clark and his running a US concentration camp for Haitian refugees with toxic consequences. There you go again.
How an RI topic dies:
Original poster: "Hey, this could be an interesting film about (x)."
Second and third posters: "Yes, how about (y). And (z). What do you think of the theme in (zx) or (xz's) performance?
Hugh, seeing a movie title and reaching for his Alex Jones bullhorn: "Psyop. CIA. Fascist. Military recruitment. Perception management. JFK. Meme. Inoculation. Disney. Spielberg. Propaganda manuals. Multiplex. Oh, and have you read my other post about Bra Boys, Wall-E, and General Wesley Clark?"
Hugh's critics: Collective annoyance, snarky jokes, repetitive exhortations to fact-check and/or consider psychological counseling, avoid threadjacking, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Defenders of Hugh: "Stop picking on Hugh, he's on to something, he's a genius, you guys are a bunch of dicks, especially Pan and orz, and why not just ignore him?"
Hugh: "Trolls, disinfo, ignorant, uneducated, ad hominem, I've studied this for years, therefore I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Oh, and by the way, have you seen my post about (discredited) hijacking of (obscure JFK researcher) in the (film name)?"
Original Poster: "Hey, what the hell happened? I was trying to discuss a movie? Why are we now arguing about the reality of 'keyword hijacking?' and whether or not Hugh fits the DSM definition of delusional? Hey, is anyone listening? Can we please talk about the (aesthetics, sociological importance, pop cultural significance, historical relevance) of the movie? Hello?
Hello?!?"
THREAD DIES.
Return to top."Be wary of perfect matches as dangles. They might be used to lead you somewhere and nest a hidden message. Partial matches (usually last names) are mnemonically good enough for KH and have been standard operating procedure for years." (HMW)
On-topic or bust!
